Discussion

YENROSEWEEK6.docx

ALBERTO’S DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. In your own words, explain what a budget is and the difference between a static and flexible budget. Why would it be important for a business to have a flexible budget versus a static budget?

2. Budgets are developed months before the end of the current year and are best-guess estimates of future performance. What do you think might be some pitfalls of budgeting, and how can they be avoided?

YENROSE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. What are two common reasons to use a factorial design? Describe why Bartholow and Heinz's word association study on alcohol and thoughts of aggression was a factorial design.

2. Explain why experimenters usually prioritize internal validity over external validity when it is difficult to achieve both.

3. For this assignment, you will choose two EMPIRICAL articles that make an association or causal claim. You will summarize and interrogate these articles using the three claims, four validities framework discussed in class.

NO REVIEW OR META-ANALYSES CAN BE USED FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT.

PART 1 Read through each article carefully and write a summary of each article. Write about the articles in everyday language, explaining the theory each was testing, the method used, the most important results, and the main points in the discussion. Be very careful not to plagiarize at this stage (please reread the course resources on academic integrity (plagiarism) and the APA guide on paraphrasing).

Write 250 words for each summary (for a total of 500 words following this organizational structure:

· Describe the article's purpose and main hypotheses.

· Identify the study's design: Experimental or correlational.

· Describe the subjects who participated in the study and each key variable.

· Describe the main results and the author’s conclusions.

PART 2

In 500-600 words for each article (1,000-1,200-words total), evaluate each of your articles using the four big validities.

For each article, work through the four big validities (construct validity, external validity, statistical validity, and internal validity) in turn, indicating whether the article does a good or bad job on each front. As you write, keep in mind that you are demonstrating your mastery of this material. Show that you know how to ask questions about each of the four validities. Demonstrate that you know what the answers to these questions mean. Use the attached “Article Interrogation Guide” to ensure you are investigating the appropriate material for each section.

This assignment uses a template. YOU MUST USE THE ATTACHED “Article Interrogation Template” TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

PSY-260-T6-RS-ArticleInterrogationGuide.docx

Article Interrogation GUIDE

Examine each of your articles using the four big validities. For each article, work through the four big validities in turn, indicating whether the article does a good or bad job on each front. As you write, keep in mind that you are demonstrating your mastery of this material! Demonstrate that you know how to ask questions about each of the four validities and that you know what the answers to these questions mean. Finally, demonstrate that you understand what it means to prioritize validities as you interrogate a study.

Construct validity: Evaluate the measures and manipulations.

1. Restate each variable and how it was operationalized. (“They operationalized ___ by doing _____”).

2. After you describe each measure or manipulation, indicate any reliability and validity information provided in the article. Do they give Cronbach’s alphas; if so, what are they? Are they good or bad? Do they give interrater reliabilities; if so, what are they? Do they give any evidence for predictive or concurrent validity, perhaps to referring to how the measure has been used in past research?

3.Using this information, give your assessment—is each measure reliable and valid? If such information is not included, then evaluate that—what would you like to see?

For manipulated variables, are the manipulations construct valid, in your opinion? (See Chapter 10). If it is a manipulated variable, do they do any manipulation checks to show you that their manipulation did what they intended it to do? Does the manipulation have face validity?

Statistical validity: Evaluate how strongly the results support their argument.

1. For each major result, evaluate its effect size to the best of your ability. State the effect size if it is given in terms you understand (e.g., r or d).

If it is a beta in a regression table, how big is the beta for the main variable of interest, compared to the others on the table? Are the major effects statistically significant? What does this mean?

2. Discuss how strongly and how well the results pattern supported the authors’ hypotheses. See if you can evaluate how strong the result is in some “real-world” terms, like an increase in IQ points or a weight loss of some number of pounds, or a reaction time in seconds.

Internal validity: Can the study support a causal claim? Does it intend to?

1. First, state what specific causal claim the researchers wish to make (if it is an experiment) or might wish to make (if it is a correlational study).

2. If it is an experiment, apply the causal rules. Do any apply to your article? If not, what is your overall evaluation? Can they make a causal statement?

If it is a multiple regression design, apply the causal rules, and for internal validity, review what variables were controlled for in the design. Can you think of any other third variables? What is your overall evaluation? Can they make a causal statement?

Before criticizing for third variables, remember that a confound is a problem with systematic variance (a true confound) and not unsystematic variance (an obscuring factor).

Thus, if you think that some people in the study might have been in a bad mood, that will not be a confound unless people in only one group were in a bad mood, and the others were not.

External validity: To whom or to what other contexts can the results be generalized?

External validity addresses two issues: to whom (if anyone) can the results be generalized, and to what other situations or settings? Remember that it is how a sample is drawn, not how many people are in it, that determines external validity.

1. Describe the sample and population.

2. Describe how the sample was selected.

3. Based off of the information provided, evaluate external validity.

**Please use the “Article Interrogation Template” for this assignment. This is a guide for the assignment but does not contain all of the required sections for the paper submission.

Research Methods in Psychology, 2e © W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

By Beth Morling

image1.png